Gun's, Germs and Steel has some convincing arguments about why the disparity of technological development exists between cultures/races. I've looked 10+ pages deep into the Science forum looking for studies that support this websites thesis and I'm wondering if I just missed them. Couple specific questions / inquiries for those of you who have accumulated good references (that I can't seem to find linked easily.)

1) Why is there no discussion of genetic inbreeding? European dynasties suffered horrible effects from attempting to segregate their breeding populations. I can understand the desire to preserve important and good genes (look at any farmer.) But no plant breeder wants to introduce senescence or genetic decay and same with animal husbandry. Where is the threshold for sustainable vigorous health?

2) Most cultures have superstitions or memes that relate to having their children breed with members not directly related but of the same caste, religion, or social grouping. Are there statistics that back up / reinforce these traditional ideas?

3) As for the preservation of a race [read:genes] becoming extinct. When other animal populations are at risk of extinction, humans breed them to include the maximum genetic diversity. How are these two competing demands to be balanced? Where is the benefit of genetic diversity and the preservation of genes equal?

I really believe that answering these questions will help differentiate beneficial gene preservation from [what is perceived as] racism. (I've tried through google and searches but am not best humanities researcher tbh.)

Sorry for the vagueness but I'm hoping to cast a wide net to see if there are studies I have missed. Thank you for reading.

Gun's, Germs and Steel has some convincing arguments about why the disparity of technological development exists between cultures/races.

Except Diamond conveniently chose to overlook plant and animals species that other races could have domesticated and apparently were not intelligent enough to. He admits right from the start that he SET OUT to offer an alternative to the obvious conclusion that whites have superior intelligence. That is not how science works. You don't get to assume your conclusion and then only look for evidence supporting that view.

Quote:

Why is there no discussion of genetic inbreeding? European dynasties suffered horrible effects from attempting to segregate their breeding populations.

Don't let Hollywood deceive you on this topic. You seem to be thinking of the Hapsburgs, who only showed "horrible" effects after seven hundred years of what was essentially sibling inbreeding. What's the magic number of breeding partner options before it's "okay"? Everything on Earth is "inbred." That didn't stop us from inventing rockets. Rainbow Africa is still working on keeping the water running.

Quote:

As for the preservation of a race [read:genes] becoming extinct. When other animal populations are at risk of extinction, humans breed them to include the maximum genetic diversity.

Only because in these cases, their numbers are already severely diminished. Whites' most certainly are not.

1) Why is there no discussion of genetic inbreeding? European dynasties suffered horrible effects from attempting to segregate their breeding populations. I can understand the desire to preserve important and good genes (look at any farmer.) But no plant breeder wants to introduce senescence or genetic decay and same with animal husbandry. Where is the threshold for sustainable vigorous health?

There are over 700 million Whites on Earth, there is no risk of inbreeding.

Quote:

2) Most cultures have superstitions or memes that relate to having their children breed with members not directly related but of the same caste, religion, or social grouping. Are there statistics that back up / reinforce these traditional ideas?

When a White breeds with a non-White the resulting offspring in general will be less intelligent than Whites. In a Survival of the Fittest scenario that is obviously a bad thing as what makes humans unique is our intelligence. The races exist due to isolated breeding so it makes perfect sense for someone to want their children to be like them.

Quote:

3) As for the preservation of a race [read:genes] becoming extinct. When other animal populations are at risk of extinction, humans breed them to include the maximum genetic diversity. How are these two competing demands to be balanced? Where is the benefit of genetic diversity and the preservation of genes equal?

Races are another name for sub-species, Polar Bears are capable of breeding with Brown and Black Bears yet scientists are actually trying to call attention that interbreeding between them puts the survival of Polar Bears at risk yet Whites are told our nations will be made stronger through miscegenation.

Whites are at no risk of inbreeding, there are hundreds of millions of Whites around the world. The races evolved because of isolated breeding and were strengthened by their environment due to certain factors that produce unique traits, miscegenation destroys many of these unique traits and often replaces them with Genetic abnormalities.

__________________

Quote:

I turned against the left wing because they don't like genetics, because genetics implies that sometimes in life we fail because we have bad genes. They want all failure in life to be due to the evil system.

Dr. James D. Watson, PhD, and co-discoverer of the structure of DNA.

Quote:

The most precious possession you have in the world is your own people.

Races are another name for sub-species, Polar Bears are capable of breeding with Brown and Black Bears yet scientists are actually trying to call attention that interbreeding between them puts the survival of Polar Bears at risk yet Whites are told our nations will be made stronger through miscegenation.

Thank you this is a perfect example of what I was looking for.

Quote:

"The races evolved because of isolated breeding and were strengthened by their environment due to certain factors that produce unique traits, miscegenation destroys many of these unique traits and often replaces them with Genetic abnormalities."

This doesn't gel with what I've read about hybrid vigor among plant breeders. [Despite the polar bear analogy; it seems there is far more variation between them and brown/black then among potential human interbreeds.] I can certainly understand attempting to stop interbreeding among vastly different races for the bear reason (caucasians and pygmies for instance.) But what about the beneficial genes that arise through evolution in other populations? Surely genetic influx is an important tool for a population to be capable of adapting to new challenges? I doubt all the polar bears are purely of the same 'race'; there subdivisions and different features / gene pools. What we consider Caucasian genes today did not originate "entirely" from Caucasian environments. There was spread and mixing [although I'll admit a relatively small amount for the majority of history, but still a measurable influence.]

The claim of many I have seen repeated here is that all spreading and all mixing not within a race is bad. I would be very convinced by studies of humans or plants with variation similar to humans showing this to be the case.

Quote:

When a White breeds with a non-White the resulting offspring in general will be less intelligent than Whites. In a Survival of the Fittest scenario that is obviously a bad thing as what makes humans unique is our intelligence. The races exist due to isolated breeding so it makes perfect sense for someone to want their children to be like them.

Frankly I don't see how this assertion holds up generally. Intelligence is always distributed over a bell curve, meaning some members of a given (average lower intel.) population will be more intelligent than an avg high int pop. Also, we don't understand the exact mapping between intelligence and genes, and it is very well possible that a unique interbred combination produces greater intelligence bearing genes. Especially given the limited selection factor most people are subjected to when seeking mates, excluding members of a race close to yours [I'll admit theres probably a threshold and spectrum for where hybrid vigor is balanced and I don't know what it is] with individuals of unusual intelligence seems to be missing out on possible advantages.

Quote:

There are over 700 million Whites on Earth, there is no risk of inbreeding.

Well, most whites don't believe in the preservation of the white race and as such will not be predisposed to inbreeding. So maybe there isn't a risk of inbreeding. But among the much smaller populations who exclusively breed with their own race, how can you assert that there is no risk with such certainty?

Quote:

Except Diamond conveniently chose to overlook plant and animals species that other races could have domesticated and apparently were not intelligent enough to. He admits right from the start that he SET OUT to offer an alternative to the obvious conclusion that whites have superior intelligence. That is not how science works. You don't get to assume your conclusion and then only look for evidence supporting that view.

If you could provide more info, i.e. a paper that disagrees or points out flaws with Diamond's work that would be helpful. I found his method to be very scientific. He provided citations, evidence, and a clear train of reasoning. Maybe the reason he set out to find an alternative explanation for historical events is because intelligence is a poorly defined abstract concept and inadequate for explaining all events ever. I found his explanations of cultural development enlightening. And frankly I don't think that his views support the standard 'multi-culturalism is good' liberal theory. I can see how many people twist his words for that effect, but he is merely a historian. The reason I bring him up is in essence to support the idea that there may be genes worth preserving in races that are not white.

Quote:

Don't let Hollywood deceive you on this topic. You seem to be thinking of the Hapsburgs, who only showed "horrible" effects after seven hundred years of what was essentially sibling inbreeding. What's the magic number of breeding partner options before it's "okay"? Everything on Earth is "inbred." That didn't stop us from inventing rockets. Rainbow Africa is still working on keeping the water running.

Not everything on Earth is "inbred" to the same degree. I'm not referring exclusively to the Hapsburgs, who are the most pronounced example, but rather to the many different groups of people who have practiced inbreeding to minor degrees. There wasn't just one bad apple. Look how quickly dog breeds suffer from genetic problems. German shepherds and other purebreds were created in a relatively short period of time with many people attempting to keep diversity up and there are still huge issues.

Quote:

Only because in these cases, their numbers are already severely diminished. Whites' most certainly are not.

The number of whites who breed exclusively with their own race IS severely diminished. That's the whole point of this website right? To promote race breeding when it is very unpopular in the larger culture.

I'm white by descent. But I don't see evidence or proof that would lead me to want to breed exclusively with someone else who is white. I have found some limited evidence that selecting a mate from within your own culture is preferable for marital / familial stability; but I would really like more of a smoking gun. Where is the threshold?

1) Why is there no discussion of genetic inbreeding? European dynasties suffered horrible effects from attempting to segregate their breeding populations.

Ah, Inbreeding. The liberal's goto argument against white people wanting to breed with other white people (but never used as an argument against blacks breeding with other blacks).

Here's an example of English royalty: During or around Queen Victoria's rule, royal descendants started being afflicted with hemophilia. Hemophelia is a recessive gene and came from outside of the bloodline. If the royal family were more selective in it's choices, it would have never picked up this gene. This is akin to the fact that if white people don't start being more selective with breeding with people of African lineage, there mulatto descendants just might end up having lifelong treatments and early death from sickle cell anemia.

This is all besides the point anyway. A population needs to be very small for inbreeding to actually occur. There are plenty of white people still. Even if many of them are being guided by extremist liberal agenda into breeding outside of their race, most are not.

The way I see it is that whites evolved separately and should protect their evolutionary heritage; their European blood. They have shown that they're the strongest and most capable race on Earth: The British empire has outdone any other empire in history.

If the OP is of pure Caucasian heritage, he should think again on his viewpoint. If he isn't, then he's probably just another person trying to convince whites to breed themselves out. Currently it's an unfair fight, he has all of the media and academia on his side.

Gun's, Germs and Steel has some convincing arguments about why the disparity of technological development exists between cultures/races. I've looked 10+ pages deep into the Science forum looking for studies that support this websites thesis and I'm wondering if I just missed them. Couple specific questions / inquiries for those of you who have accumulated good references (that I can't seem to find linked easily.)

1) Why is there no discussion of genetic inbreeding? European dynasties suffered horrible effects from attempting to segregate their breeding populations. I can understand the desire to preserve important and good genes (look at any farmer.) But no plant breeder wants to introduce senescence or genetic decay and same with animal husbandry. Where is the threshold for sustainable vigorous health?

2) Most cultures have superstitions or memes that relate to having their children breed with members not directly related but of the same caste, religion, or social grouping. Are there statistics that back up / reinforce these traditional ideas?

3) As for the preservation of a race [read:genes] becoming extinct. When other animal populations are at risk of extinction, humans breed them to include the maximum genetic diversity. How are these two competing demands to be balanced? Where is the benefit of genetic diversity and the preservation of genes equal?

I really believe that answering these questions will help differentiate beneficial gene preservation from [what is perceived as] racism. (I've tried through google and searches but am not best humanities researcher tbh.)

Sorry for the vagueness but I'm hoping to cast a wide net to see if there are studies I have missed. Thank you for reading.

No one is flooding each and every black country and ONLY black countries with hundreds of millions of non-blacks to blend all blacks out of existence and questioning them on the importance of genetic diversity vs racial extinction. You are only asking this question because we're white.

Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

i read this site alot with my father.i remember how i used to get upset and cry about alot of what was said here,but now now i realise this site is what happens when fear meets stupidity. everything you think know about africa,you saw in a documentary of a tribe that secludes itself from civilisation.during the civil war,the cia used slaves to gather intelligence on the confederates,because no one would ever suspect a slave.they were successful.we are at a very pivitol time in history right now.there was a time when i would visit the ghetto,and id see violence,and drive bys,and gangs.now i hear high school kids discusing colledge,and the fraternities and sororities they want to join.these days,when i visit black websites, i find that i have to observe the conversation,and study before i can even join in.i dont know why weve just stated to get excited about education,and the future of earthlings,but its all so fascinating,and alluring...and dare i say freeing? i feel so sorry for white people sometimes.i often wonder how did such an obvious mental illness go undetected for so many years.the rest of the world was convinced of your superiority,because it was beaten into us.do you know how frustrating it is to share the world ppl who think they are not capable of killing,robbing,and rapingg? do you know how it hurtful it is to post a picture on a website,and have some guy in ireland tell me that the only reason im attractive is because of him? can you imagine what its like to be an excellent basketball player in america,and have some tea drinking weenie in england tell you that youre only a great basketball player because of him? that his height and build is talent all came from him,and had nothing to do with the ball player being of african decent,or his parents? i know in my heart,that black ppl can be just as smart,or smarter than whites.whites are not perfect,very far from it.those inventions that you love bragging about so much,are all incomplete and very much flawed.the day you invent something that doesnt harm the earth,women and children,animals,and our oceans,will be the day ill believe youre all knowing.so do i think whites are afraid of black intelligence? well,no.why should they be? we do not wish to harm them.

This doesn't gel with what I've read about hybrid vigor among plant breeders. [Despite the polar bear analogy; it seems there is far more variation between them and brown/black then among potential human interbreeds.] I can certainly understand attempting to stop interbreeding among vastly different races for the bear reason (caucasians and pygmies for instance.) But what about the beneficial genes that arise through evolution in other populations? Surely genetic influx is an important tool for a population to be capable of adapting to new challenges? I doubt all the polar bears are purely of the same 'race'; there subdivisions and different features / gene pools. What we consider Caucasian genes today did not originate "entirely" from Caucasian environments. There was spread and mixing [although I'll admit a relatively small amount for the majority of history, but still a measurable influence.]

The claim of many I have seen repeated here is that all spreading and all mixing not within a race is bad. I would be very convinced by studies of humans or plants with variation similar to humans showing this to be the case.

Hybrid vigor is not the only outcome of outbreeding, delirious results are very possible. Multiculturalism is not the result of deductive science where populations of men selected for certain traits and imported to improve the general quality of people. In fact, multiculturalism dogma tells us we are really all the same, that genetics don’t really affect appearance or behavior and that interbreeding won’t change anything.

Quote:

Frankly I don't see how this assertion holds up generally. Intelligence is always distributed over a bell curve, meaning some members of a given (average lower intel.) population will be more intelligent than an avg high int pop. Also, we don't understand the exact mapping between intelligence and genes, and it is very well possible that a unique interbred combination produces greater intelligence bearing genes. Especially given the limited selection factor most people are subjected to when seeking mates, excluding members of a race close to yours [I'll admit theres probably a threshold and spectrum for where hybrid vigor is balanced and I don't know what it is] with individuals of unusual intelligence seems to be missing out on possible advantages.

Intelligence distribution is very well documented for different ethnic groups around the world. They are consistent in different cultures and produce valid results just about everywhere. There is also an IQ phenomenon known as regression to the mean, where the offspring of exceptional genetics tend to converge back to the population norm.
Hybrid vigor, as I said before, is not the only outcome of outbreeding. It is just as likely that mixed offspring will be less intelligence and suffer from other mutations (ie. Introduction of bad recessive genes). Just because we don’t understand the exact mechanisms of intelligence and what genes control it does not mean we can’t draw any conclusions about it. As it stands, current data suggests that mixing two races produces a new average that lies in between the mean of the parent populations. For example, mulattos (50% black + 50% white) have a mean IQ of about 85, between the 70 black and 100 white. This has been consistent in America and South Africa.

Quote:

Well, most whites don't believe in the preservation of the white race and as such will not be predisposed to inbreeding. So maybe there isn't a risk of inbreeding. But among the much smaller populations who exclusively breed with their own race, how can you assert that there is no risk with such certainty?

So say the world becomes one homogenous coffee colored race. What then? Where do we draw new populations from? Won’t the coffee colored people from that point on be inbred?

Quote:

If you could provide more info, i.e. a paper that disagrees or points out flaws with Diamond's work that would be helpful. I found his method to be very scientific. He provided citations, evidence, and a clear train of reasoning. Maybe the reason he set out to find an alternative explanation for historical events is because intelligence is a poorly defined abstract concept and inadequate for explaining all events ever. I found his explanations of cultural development enlightening. And frankly I don't think that his views support the standard 'multi-culturalism is good' liberal theory. I can see how many people twist his words for that effect, but he is merely a historian. The reason I bring him up is in essence to support the idea that there may be genes worth preserving in races that are not white.

Why weren’t the Natives capable of turning North America into a super power the way Europeans were? Why is the rest of China not like the Hong Kong? Why are former white colonies in Africa sinking into squalor and poverty? Did a bunch of new plants and animals spring up when the white man arrived? Or did technology fall from a meteor to the white man and give him a technological boost?

Quote:

Not everything on Earth is "inbred" to the same degree. I'm not referring exclusively to the Hapsburgs, who are the most pronounced example, but rather to the many different groups of people who have practiced inbreeding to minor degrees. There wasn't just one bad apple. Look how quickly dog breeds suffer from genetic problems. German shepherds and other purebreds were created in a relatively short period of time with many people attempting to keep diversity up and there are still huge issues.

The founding populations for pure bred animal species are very very small. It is nothing close to the diversity found in a homogenous race.

Quote:

The number of whites who breed exclusively with their own race IS severely diminished. That's the whole point of this website right? To promote race breeding when it is very unpopular in the larger culture.

I'm white by descent. But I don't see evidence or proof that would lead me to want to breed exclusively with someone else who is white. I have found some limited evidence that selecting a mate from within your own culture is preferable for marital / familial stability; but I would really like more of a smoking gun. Where is the threshold?

The vast majority of whites still breed exclusively within their own race. Intermixing is not what is dwindling the white numbers, it is the low birth rate that has been brought about by social transformation that discourage large families. Even multiculturalism, with its supposed egalitarianism, cannot ignore human biodiversity. That is why there are quotas and limits in place in education and the work force. Despite this, different ethnic groups STILL have different success rates in different fields.

You want a smoking gun? Ask yourself why you posted that wall of crap above in an attempt to discredit racial homogeny. Do you feel bad knowing some people are just born better, smarter, more attratice etc? Why is the topic of racial difference and IQ such taboo so much so that many academics get hounded for even alluding to them?

Despite the polar bear analogy; it seems there is far more variation between them and brown/black then among potential human interbreeds.

You forgot proof.

Quote:

But what about the beneficial genes that arise through evolution in other populations?

You forgot proof again.

Quote:

Surely genetic influx is an important tool for a population to be capable of adapting to new challenges?

"Surely"? Whites invented just about every technological innovation worth mentioning for the last six thousand years. Repeated studies have shown that we have the best looking people (even according to newborn children, as measured by their preferences for looking at certain faces). We win the most Olympic gold medals. Despite all this, you are "sure" that mixing with other races would benefit us?

Quote:

The claim of many I have seen repeated here is that all spreading and all mixing not within a race is bad. I would be very convinced by studies of humans or plants with variation similar to humans showing this to be the case.

I recommend reading some science. To do this, you will have to wander outside the "liberal-approved reading list" you were given at your indoctrination center ("college" or "high school"). Start with the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. It included IQ performance of whites, blacks, and mulattos (you know, "mixed" people). Let's see if you can guess the proper order for the average intellectual capacity of each group even when reared in exactly the same environment. Here's a hint: Darker=dumber. The total spread was a full standard deviation. That's very significant. Guess what: Mixing with blacks always makes us stupider and more violent.

Quote:

Intelligence is always distributed over a bell curve, meaning some members of a given (average lower intel.) population will be more intelligent than an avg high int pop.

EVERYTHING is distributed over a bell curve. Your argument is typical of a person who does not understand anything about statistics. Let me guess: You believe newborns are just as strong as twenty-year-old males because strength is distributed over a bell-curve.

Quote:

Also, we don't understand the exact mapping between intelligence and genes

We don't understand the exact mapping between EYE COLOR and genes, though we are now quite certain that it's controlled by more than one gene. Let me guess: You don't believe in the existence of eye color.

Quote:

. . . It is very well possible that a unique interbred combination produces greater intelligence bearing genes.

In science fiction, yes. Here in reality land, there doesn't seem to be any evidence supporting such a notion.

Quote:

If you could provide more info, i.e. a paper that disagrees or points out flaws with Diamond's work that would be helpful.

Of course you did. He provided you with a politically correct alternative to objective (non-PC) reality.

Quote:

He provided citations, evidence, and a clear train of reasoning.

Ooh citations! Well, that settles it then. If he can find five other libtards who share his beliefs, we have to yield to his point of view even if it does not explain, for example, why the Amerinds killed and ate all the horses in North America instead of domesticating them. (They had to be reintroduced from Europe later.)

Quote:

Maybe the reason he set out to find an alternative explanation for historical events is because intelligence is a poorly defined abstract concept.

Great, another liberal who hasn't read anything about intelligence from later than 1941. "I don't wanna believe in it, so I'll keep repeating a list of problems that were resolved fifty years ago."

Quote:

The reason I bring him up is in essence to support the idea that there may be genes worth preserving in races that are not white.

I don't think there are many white nationalists here who fail to see your true purpose in starting this thread.

Quote:

Not everything on Earth is "inbred" to the same degree.

I take it that you are using a definition of "inbred" that suits your belief system. I don't see how you could otherwise ignore the inescapable conclusion that every species capable of sex has members who occasionally breed with a close relative: the alternative is logically impossible now isn't it.

Quote:

I'm not referring exclusively to the Hapsburgs, who are the most pronounced example, but rather to the many different groups of people who have practiced inbreeding to minor degrees.

Really? Enlighten us on the severe and chronic problems they have experienced from this in less than twenty generations. I'll wait.

Quote:

German shepherds and other purebreds were created in a relatively short period of time with many people attempting to keep diversity up and there are still huge issues.

German Shepherds are remarkable intelligent, robust, beautiful dogs. I think you failed with that particular example. Go read about a process called hybrid-supercharging. Even if our race eventually did begin to suffer ill effects from inbreeding, we could fix them with just our own race whenever we wanted to. You are pretending that there is a magic number of breeding partners that will make everything okay, and it JUST HAPPENS to require white people to sully their genes with non-whites. Can you not see how contrived that looks? Thanks to white technological innovations, all races on earth exist in vastly greater numbers than at any time in pre-history. By your argument, we were all fine when there were ten million humans on earth, but we are in danger of "inbreeding" now that there are hundreds of millions of whites for other whites to select from. Your race is either doing okay or it isn't. Ours obviously is. It seems that someone wants to change that for some odd reason. Gee, I wonder who that would be and why they would want to.

Quote:

The number of whites who breed exclusively with their own race IS severely diminished.

Actually, the vast majority of whites still breed only with whites, despite the ongoing campaign by libtards and Jews. Still, I think we have a right to call foul on their hypocrisy and misdirection.

Quote:

I'm white by descent. But I don't see evidence or proof that would lead me to want to breed exclusively with someone else who is white.

You sound like someone who doesn't even "breed" within your own species.